Monday, September 23, 2013

Veil backlash

People in the southern Swiss canton of Ticino voted to impose the country's first ban on face-covering veils on Sunday, following in the footsteps of French and Belgian restrictions that rights groups say discriminate against Muslims.

Almost two thirds of voters in the Italian-speaking district backed the ban ....

Amnesty International said the vote was a "black day for human rights in Ticino"....

France was the first country in Europe to pass a law banning full-face veils in public, in 2010, and Belgium later followed suit.

It's fairly common to have laws against wearing masks in public -- try going into a bank wearing one of these (right) -- because being able to identify people by facial characteristics has important law enforcement and, in our culture, social value. The question becomes what happens when religious values create the sort of stark, public clash with civic values in an individual society that full-face veils create.

And the broader question -- does living in a free nation require the abandonment of all social norms aside from those that reflect the need to protect people and their property from harm or theft?

A five-minute debate at the Guardian on this issue. Columnists Nabila Ramdani and Joan Smith discuss whether any restrictions should apply to the wearing of the Islamic full-face veil (niqab) in public:

Posted at 02:34:21 PM

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I wonder if Amnesty International would come to my defense if I declared by religion to be worship of the Lone Ranger and that my practice of it includes wearing a mask at all times.

I've never understood why "established" religions get more status than "fringe" religions that may only have 10 adherents instead of 10 million. Apart from size or longevity, I don't see why a group such as the Heaven's Gate Hale-Bopp folks are more "legitimate" than those who worship a Catholic or Muslim god.

Our constitution does not say that we have to make special accommodations for religions, yet we see this occur.

It may be a tortured comparison, but it reminds me of the Voter ID debate. Regardless of disparate impact, this is not an attack on Muslims (duh, they're the ones wearing the veils), or minorities who don't have an ID, but rather simply an attempt to enforce common sense guidelines that most people would likely agree are perfectly reasonable in the abstract.

If we ever have a terrorist attack in this country that involves a woman covered up with a veil or maybe it's a man covering up so he's not seen, that will be the end for anyone wearing a veil in this country.
It will be outlawed immediately, no questions about that!

Personally, I flat out don't trust anyone like that & I'll be damned as to how someone can drive covered up like that.

(Reuters) - The Canadian province of Quebec will not allow public servants to wear Muslim headscarves, Jewish skullcaps or other obvious religious symbols under a new charter unveiled on Tuesday that is designed to cement a secular society.

@ Garry
"If we ever have a terrorist attack in this country that involves a woman covered up with a veil or maybe it's a man covering up so he's not seen, that will be the end for anyone wearing a veil in this country.
It will be outlawed immediately, no questions about that!"

Oh, just like assault rifles have been outlawed following the numerous mass shootings that have occurred in this country?!?...

Though we do have to take our shoes off to get on an airplane because of the "shoe bomber" (even though it was C-4 in his shoes, which requires a detonator, not a match, so it couldn't have worked anyway)... and the 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about veils, does it? So maybe you're right...

I don't call this marginalization. It's reasonable to prohibit kids playing high school sports from wearing jewelry and/or religious apparel for safety reasons. I've been wrestling with this for a while but I"m inclined to think it 's a reasonable prohbition.

I really have very little interest in hearing what Amnesty International thinks of this issue.

I don't believe this law is aimed at protecting anyone; it's an act of discrimination against Muslims, their women in particular. If it's against the law to wear a burka in public, are these women under house arrest since it's against their religion to uncover their faces and bodies in public?

This is bigotry, plain and simple, and an attempt to force Muslims out of the region.

Yeah, this is unreasonable, and Wendy's probably right about the real motivation for this law - a desire to keep Muslims out.

I'm fine with full-face coverings being prohibited in certain situations where there's a particular need for such prohibitions, such as having a drivers license photo taken or entering a bank.

But a blanket prohibition on going about in public with your face covered is unjustifiable and I don't think it's been against the law in most places before now. I used to wear a ski mask while walking to school on cold winter days - was I breaking the law? Should MrJM have to set aside his luchador mask?

Bruce L., if you light a piece of C-4 with a match, it will burn quite merrily, and is useful for heating cans of C-rations. If you then stamp on it, it will detonate and blow your foot off.

In our country, banning the veils or headscarves worn by observant Muslim women would be a First Amendment issue. "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion or restricting the free exercise thereof, ..." We have no established religion, such as the Anglican church in England, and we aren't free to ban the wearing of veils or headscarves, if it's a religious observance.

Further, I am one who believes that a little bit of mystery in feminine dress is often a good thing, and I kind of like the style.

Considering the climate in the Swiss Alps requires completely covering your face and body while out in public during a good part of the year, this further points out the bigoted hypocrisy behind the law.

@Bruce L: There's no constitutional right to be veiled as it's not a tenet of Islam.
@DaveB: Same thing.
This is a custom of certain tribes of Arabia, Afghanistan & Iraq.
It predates Islam by hundreds, possibly a thousand years. There's no religious basis to it at all. Just look at the Muslim women of Indonesia, they wear only a head covering, not a veil.
In addition, one tribe of nomads in Northern Africa has not the women, but the men wear a "veil" for lack of a better term for their facial covering.
Muslims of both sexes are required to be "modest in their dress", not covered up.
Plus you should know that Saudi women flying on non-Saudi airlines out of that country immediately get rid of the robe & veil as soon as the plane is out of Saudi airspace & wear pants or mini skirts the rest of the flight to Western Europe, where they will be in bikinis on the beach!

Garry, I suspect that you are not a Muslim. Perhaps you should ask a Muslim about the reasons for women covering their hair and faces.

The veils and headscarves are not the only things that started as secular customs and have become religious. The proscriptions against eating pork and shellfish in some religions, notably Islam and Judaism, started as sanitary precautions (if you ate these, you would become sick!) and have become entrenched in the religions. Nobody is forcing pork and shellfish on Jews or Muslims, though my Muslim son-in-law really enjoys ham and shrimp!

@DaveB: Since the Muslims of Indonesia & many other places don't require the women to be veiled, it's not religious, it's tribal.
Plus the safety & security of the people at large trumps any idiotic tribal customs.

-Any remotely reasonable justification for banning full-face coverings to protect the safety and security of people at large.

Is there really a wave of crimes committed by people wearing full-face coverings like the niqab? I've never heard of it.

I mean, ski masks are a lot more associated with crime than niqabs are, but as far as I know, it's not illegal just to walk down the street wearing one, even on a hot day. The police might talk to you about it, but I doubt you'd get arrested or charged with a crime just for that.

"we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American ... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag ... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

I favor banning the veil because it fosters dual loyalty. As Garry says, this is not a religious requirement so much as it is a cultural statement. I believe in America as a melting pot, a concept which has been under assault for a long time now. This is just the latest insult to it.

I don't see anything about clothing in that quotation from Teddy Roosevelt. Is it dividing allegiances to wear a crucifix necklace or a Star of David? How about a yarmulke or a Roman collar? Or, heck, a Yankees cap or a "Southern pride" t-shirt? Americans wear clothes to identify their allegiances to groups other than America all the time, and I don't see anyone complaining about it.

When does a display go from being merely a token of pride or religious belief and become a statement of non-assimilation into the American melting pot? To paraphrase Potter Stewart, I know it when I see it.

"And you're a fraud if you pretend for a moment that there aren't large numbers of American Jews who feel loyalty to Israel."

Did you see the results of the last election? Most Jews voted Democratic even though the Democratic Party is ambivalent toward Israel at best. The fact is that Jews are not loyal to Israel. The vast majority of Jews are assimilated.

Most American Jewish families came to this country in the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries and, in those days, no one felt they had the RIGHT to continue Old World ways. My grandparents took off their yarmulkes and worked on the Sabbath because it was necessary to make a living. They gave their kids American names. They assimilated. The melting pot was the ideal back then, unlike today when liberals are pushing the "polyglot boardinghouse" model.

Today, immigrants feel they merely live here. They believe they have rights but they are not obligated to become part of the country and they owe it no loyalty. Let's see how that works out, liberals.

"He's admitted that he can't justify his prejudices using reasons, but wants them enshrined in law anyway."

Right. Believing in America as a melting pot rather than a multicultural boardinghouse is now called prejudice. Theodore Roosevelt would be called a bigot today. I realize that but I still think he spoke wisdom.

"I favor banning the veil because it fosters dual loyalty. As Garry says, this is not a religious requirement so much as it is a cultural statement."

So under this logic, we should busted up all the cutural enclaves: Chinatown, Greektown, Irish bars.

Seeing as American culture is an almalgam, how do you justify banning anything on cultural grounds without resorting to the tired opinion that American culture should have stopped evolving as soon as my people got here.

You don't know diddly about immigrants and assimilation. The idea that most or all Jews immediately shed their Old World ways to become turn-of-the-century Ward and June Cleavers is idiotic. I grew up in New York, I grew up with actual immigrants in my family and lived in the most Jewish city in America. The idea that NY Jews simply dropped their culture to be just like everyone else is a load of ignorant crud.

As for your approving citation of Roosevelt, Mr. English Only, did you know that when Teddy Roosevelt was running for Governor of New York, Jewish supporters published flyers in Yiddish spewing Spain hatred to lure Jewish immigrants to support Roosevelt? Now why would they have to write flyers in YIDDISH to lure American citizens who were English-only assimilitated Jews? These were Jewish voters... Americans who were assimilated... in your fantasy world. And Roosevelt was a racist. Roosevelt is one heck of citation for someone who wants us to believe he isn't driven by bigotry.

@Taxpayer: A yarmulke, cross, Southern Pride t-shirt or Yankees cap doesn't cover up your face, which is how we describe each other!
It degrades women by making them invisible.
That's why the veil is offensive & will ultimately become a criminal offense in all but much of the Muslim world!

There was a time when social pressure encouraged (forced is a better word) to conform. However, there is no social pressure anymore. Liberals did away with that. It would be better if social pressure took care of assimilating people and the law is a very poor substitute but, absent social pressure, the law is the only tool that is left.

And, by the way, I too grew up with immigrants in my family. My mothers family came from Russia just after the revolution. All of the kids were given American names, spoke English as their first language and dressed like American kids. In those days, employers were not prohibited from not hiring people who dressed a certain way or who looked a certain way. The schools were not required to cater to foreign cultures or to teach in foreign languages. This sounds cruel but it served the purpose of forcing immigrants to become Americans.

That pressure does not exist today and the result is that we now have large groups of people with chips on their shoulders against the country.

I see we've moved past the point of actually discussing what this thread is about and instead just lobbing random rhetorical smoke bombs about affirmative action in a sweaty attempt to change the subject. I don't think there's any point in engaging further with this one; he's already admitted that he wants to criminalize (not just criticize, criminalize) conduct for no reason other than his prejudices.

"Women in Turkey are not banned from wearing headscarves in public. That link does not say that they are. More smokescreen from someone with no argument."

Turkey has backslid over the years as Islamist parties have gained more power but the aim of Kemal Ataturk and the "Young Turks" in the 1920's was indeed to ban headscarves by force of law. This is not a smokescreen, it is fact. Was Ataturk an anti-Muslim bigot?

@Jimmy G: You're dead solid perfect on that.
Ataturk wanted Turkey to look to the West, Europe & America, not he Arabic influenced Middle-East. The Ottoman sultanate had become corrupt & degenerate.
He forced a change to writing the Turkish language in the Latin alphabet & also banned the fez for men.
He wanted a totally secular society with complete freedom of religion.
Unfortunately, his reforms just haven't held over the last 80+ years.

I don't think that Turkey criminalized the wearing of headscarves in public. The country did (and still does) ban headscarves in certain public buildings, but that's different than banning them on the street. I did some basic research on this and couldn't find anything stating that wearing a headscarf in public was ever a criminal offense. Your link does not say that it was.

Here is a picture of Ataturk and his wife in 1923. She is wearing a headscarf.

I shall think of Jimmy G as I drive home down Dempster Street in Skokie, and pass the multiple "We Stand With Israel" signs.

It's very odd to hear someone yearning for the "good old days", when ostracizing (or attacking) people who didn't look like you or sound like you was common, even accepted or encouraged. I'm sure it would have been great fun as an Irish Catholic female to, say, pursue a degree in engineering back in the 1920s.

"Generally, it's best to reserve the phrase "in other words" for two things that are the same thing put in different words."

If Turkey "banned" the wearing of headscarves in public buildings that means they CRIMINALIZED headscarves in public buildings, right? When I say I support a ban, you say I favor "criminalizing" (your word). But when Muslim Turkey does it, you quibble about the meaning of the word. This is sheer hypocrisy on your part.

So Jimmy G, guns, among other things, are banned in many public buildings here... does that mean they are "criminalized"?

Smoking is banned in public buildings too... Is smoking somehow "criminal" behavior then?

Many places ban the use of cell phones inside... Does this make cell phone use "criminal"?

And you are WAY off base on your perception of Jews in this country! Somehow you believe they have all "assimilated" and have no loyalty to Israel because many voted Democratic in the last election (which, G-d forbid, couldn't have anything to do with the candidate put forth by the GOP, right?); I, along with most people, must've missed the policy paper on how the Dems wanted to wipe Israel off the map, or merely cut the amount of foreign aid we send there (oh, wait, it's the right wing of the GOP that wants to cut all foreign aid out of the budget- now that'd be great support for the Jewish homeland!). And why is it that so many Jews still speak Yiddish or Hebrew, keep kosher, celebrate Shabbas on Saturday instead of Sunday? They must be just like any good "assimilated" American, right?

Just because your family decided to abandon its culture and heritage in favor of an "assimilated" American lifestyle doesn't mean that every other group should... your family made its choice and every other family is free to make their own choice... THAT is exactly what makes America great!

"So Jimmy G, guns, among other things, are banned in many public buildings here... does that mean they are "criminalized"?"

I am tired of these word games. When I said I supported a ban on headscarves, I was accused of wanting to "criminalize" them. However, when I pointed out that the Muslim nation of Turkey banned headscarves, the same people who made the accusation against me strenuously denied that this should be called "criminalizing."

"The country did (and still does) ban headscarves in certain public buildings... In other words, it criminalizes them."

So sure, it is or it isn't, depending on what your definition of "is" is, right? But if your "ban" is not criminalization, does that mean it's an unenforceable ban with no real teeth? Which to me just seems like more unnecessary government intervention in the form of laws with no enforceable consequences (an interesting view from someone who favors less government intervention)... What would be the penalty for violating your "ban"?

And just out of curiosity, how do find Kip's post a "vile" personal attack? You have already proven on this thread that you know little about American Jews, but now you want to claim that you are one? Your logic is dizzying...

I been on this blog for several years and I have always said that I was Jewish. I grew up in Jewish neighborhoods and was bar mitzvah'd. My mother was the granddaughter of a Ukrainian rabbi of some note who was murdered in the pogrom of 1919. Do you want to see proof of my circumcision?

And, regarding this silly argument over whether "banning" is the same as "criminalizing," the word "criminalize" was brought into the discussion by the commenter "Taxpayer," not by me (9/24 at 4:26pm). If you want to discuss it further, ask HIM what he meant by it.

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.